On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 20:54 -0400, Paul Clements wrote: > Dan Stromberg wrote: > > The lecturer at the recent NG storage talk at Usenix in Anaheim, > > indicated that it was best to avoid "active/active" and get > > "active/passive" instead. > > > > Does anyone: > > > > 1) Know what these things mean? > > In the clustering world, active/active means 2 or more servers are > active at a time, either operating on separate data (and thus acting as > passive failover partners to each other), or operating on the same data > (which requires the use of a cluster filesystem or other similar > mechanism to allow coherent simultaneous access to the data). This is probably what the lecturer intended. > > 2) Know why active/passive might be preferred over active/active? > > Well, if you're talking about active/passive vs. active/active with a > cluster filesystem or such, the active/passive is tons easier to > implement and get right. Plus, depending on your application, the added > complexity of a cluster filesystem might not actually buy you much more > than you could get with, say, NFS or Samba (CIFS). What it is about active/passive that is so much easier to implement than active/active? Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
